Should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?

Chips Lovell

dearg lady wrote: »

As I said in an earlier post I think cyclists should have a different set of rules than motorists. I don't think I'm 'special', just acknowledging the fact that bikes and cars are different.

But isn't this the mentality that informs pretty much every breach of road traffic law? I think I'm OK to drive after four pints. Or I think it's safe to drive along this road above the speed limit.

TinyExplosions

dearg lady wrote: »

i won't follow any ridiculous laws just because it's the law.

And that right there laydeez and gentlebobs says it all really...

Nanazolie

I cycled in Paris for years, never feared for my life (and everyone knows the traffic is mad there). I now cycle in Dublin and every night I thank God to be still alive. I still can't understand why the whole "use a bike" schemes and incentives (Dublin bikes, Bike to work and so on) didn't start with a rethinking of the cycle lanes and the law. When there is a cycle lane, it's used by cars to park on, or has to be shared with buses. I've been sandwiched between two buses several times and I don't like the feeling of being the squeezed tomato in a BLT

There are numerous cyclists who break the law, but in fairness, a collision with another bike won't cause as serious damages as a car. Still, accidents between bikes can cause damage: a moron on a bike crashed into mine when I stopped at a red light. He destroyed my mud guard, and he had the cheek to swear at me for stopping :mad:

I think there should be a separate traffic law for cyclists, and they should be fined for not sticking to it. Same for pedestrians who step on the road while playing on their IPhone or the ones who push a buggy in the middle of the road as a traffic guard. :mad:

mcmoustache

There are three types of bad cycling that I would like to see punished more severely. My perspective on this is as a cyclist and I don't (can't ) drive so I may be a bit biased.

1 - Red Light Jumpers.
These are the most visible rule-breakers on the road on my commute. The impression that I get is that they don't think that the ROTR apply to them. Either that or they see everyone else doing it and think "What the heck, everyone else is doing it so I will too.". A few Gardai waiting near lights would easily snare them. I'd like to see a €100 on-the-spot fine administered. If the cyclist has no cash, confiscate the bike till he ponies up.

2 - Footpath (it's NOT called a "footpad" btw) cyclists. The footpath is for feet not wheels. The only wheels that should be on them have a 6 inch diameter or less or they belong to children. No self-respecting adult should be cycling on the footpath. Any cyclist who thinks they can be on it should have their bike confiscated until they pay a fine of €100 and undergo cycling lessons at their own expense.

3 - Salmon cyclists. In the city (the only city in Ireland) centre, the cycle lanes are less than a meter wide. They are unidirectional. To help with that, they have a picture of a bike on them. If the picture looks upside-down to a cyclist, he's going the wrong way. It's pretty simple. Nobody wants to be playing sidewalk shuffle at 40kph relative speed. Their bikes should be confiscated, a fine should be imposed, cycling lessons forced on them and they should undergo a psychiatric evaluation before being given back their bikes.

Coronal

mcmoustache wrote: »

they should undergo a psychiatric evaluation before being given back their bikes.

A little OT, but why? I don't see the link between mental illness and not obeying rules of the road.

dearg lady

coolbeans wrote: »

Unless the specific law endangers you, I think you should obey it. I find that I'm treated far more respectfully by other road users if I stop at RLs and ped crossings.

I do in general, I used to always always stop at red lights, but these days I will proceed at a pedestrian crossing if it's clear and safe. I still met many awful rude drivers then, so I don't find myself treated any more respectfully now, but thats just personal experience.

Nanazolie

Coronal wrote: »

A little OT, but why? I don't see the link between mental illness and not obeying rules of the road.

I think it was humourous

Captain Havoc

Nanazolie wrote: »

I cycled in Paris for years, never feared for my life (and everyone knows the traffic is mad there). I now cycle in Dublin and every night I thank God to be still alive. I still can't understand why the whole "use a bike" schemes and incentives (Dublin bikes, Bike to work and so on) didn't start with a rethinking of the cycle lanes and the law. When there is a cycle lane, it's used by cars to park on, or has to be shared with buses. I've been sandwiched between two buses several times and I don't like the feeling of being the squeezed tomato in a BLT

I too lived in Paris and Dublin and have to disagree with you. I know now there are more cycle lanes in Paris than there were when I lived there eight years ago but Dublin traffic moves a lot slower. I used to live in the centre of Paris (8th) and Dublin 4. I find cycling in Dublin grand. I wouldn't get sandwiched between two buses because I'd either be infront of or behind one of them, I wouldn't use cycle lanes either because they're full of crap but they are a joy when you get a good one.

ThisRegard

mcmoustache wrote: »

2 - Footpath (it's NOT called a "footpad" btw) cyclists.

Howdy stranger, you must be new around these parts with your fancy dialect. It IS a footpad, end of.

dearg lady

el tonto wrote: »

But isn't this the mentality that informs pretty much every breach of road traffic law? I think I'm OK to drive after four pints. Or I think it's safe to drive along this road above the speed limit.

OK, I do take your point on board, but I think it's a very different set of circumstances. I am extremely careful, if there's any pedestrians nearby I won't go through, I always slow down so I can have time to see better whats around me, and I wouldn't ever do it on a busy junction. Now maybe you still see that as wrong, and that's fair enough, it's something we may have to disagree on. I just don't want you thinkin I'm a maniac who ploughs through lights willy nilly!

TinyExplosions wrote: »

And that right there laydeez and gentlebobs says it all really...

i love when people have a big fat NOTHING to add to a discussion and think they're hilarious with a facepalm.

Yes, I refuse to follow ridiculous and pointless laws, I have a brain, I'm not a sheep.

Lumen

ThisRegard wrote: »

Howdy stranger, you must be new around these parts with your fancy dialect. It IS a footpad, end of.

Meme reference, for the uninitiated.

Cyclists, Go use the footpad

monument

mcmoustache wrote: »

3 - Salmon cyclists. In the city (the only city in Ireland) centre, the cycle lanes are less than a meter wide. They are unidirectional. To help with that, they have a picture of a bike on them. If the picture looks upside-down to a cyclist, he's going the wrong way. It's pretty simple. Nobody wants to be playing sidewalk shuffle at 40kph relative speed. Their bikes should be confiscated, a fine should be imposed, cycling lessons forced on them and they should undergo a psychiatric evaluation before being given back their bikes.

There are some contra-flow lanes and with at least one of them, the bicycle is the wrong direction (it's painted with traffic flow when it should be against it).

Also: I would like to take the time to thank the posting of the facepalm -- I have stuff to do.

Lumen

dearg lady wrote: »

I have a brain, I'm not a sheep.

Sheep have brains.

dearg lady

Lumen wrote: »

Sheep have brains.

:rolleyes:
ok, fine, I'll be clearer. I don't follow laws, rules, general concensus without thinking it through for myself. I make informed choices.

mcmoustache

Coronal wrote: »

A little OT, but why? I don't see the link between mental illness and not obeying rules of the road.

I was only slightly serious and mostly joking. Then again when I read the post again, it sounded a bit sensible. Regarding the psych evaluation, that was only for salmon cyclists. Most rule-breaking can be rationalised but salmon cycling is somewhere between insane and retarded.

Nanazolie

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I too lived in Paris and Dublin and have to disagree with you. I know now there are more cycle lanes in Paris than there were when I lived there eight years ago but Dublin traffic moves a lot slower. I used to live in the centre of Paris (8th) and Dublin 4. I find cycling in Dublin grand. I wouldn't get sandwiched between two buses because I'd either be infront of or behind one of them, I wouldn't use cycle lanes either because they're full of crap but they are a joy when you get a good one.

Try the Malahide road for an exciting new experience You can't be either in front or behind the buses because there are so many that eventually you end up between two. The area I lived in Paris had separate cycle lanes, that were protected from the main traffic with raised borders. Not that it stopped cars from parking on them, mind you!

coolbeans

dearg lady wrote: »

:rolleyes:
ok, fine, I'll be clearer. I don't follow laws, rules, general concensus without thinking it through for myself. I make informed choices.

But why can't a motorist drive on through the ped crossing, or a seemingly pointless red light using the same rationale that you just have? I don't agree with you at all. If I want to be respected on the road I'll obey the rules, as long as they do not endanger me.

Nanazolie

Lumen wrote: »

Sheep have brains.

but no bike

Chips Lovell

dearg lady wrote: »

I am extremely careful, if there's any pedestrians nearby I won't go through, I always slow down so I can have time to see better whats around me, and I wouldn't ever do it on a busy junction. Now maybe you still see that as wrong, and that's fair enough, it's something we may have to disagree on. I just don't want you thinkin I'm a maniac who ploughs through lights willy nilly!

But I'm extremely careful when I'm driving while locked.

I suspect there are very few genuine maniacs on the road. For the most part you've got people who think they're breaking the law in a non-hazardous way.

Captain Havoc

Lumen wrote: »

Sheep have brains.

Indeed'n they do. They used to use it in white pudding back in ye olden times. Sheeps brain is delicacy in some middle eastern countries.

mcmoustache

monument wrote: »

There are some contra-flow lanes and with at least one of them, the bicycle is the wrong direction (it's painted with traffic flow when it should be against it).

Also: I would like to take the time to thank the posting of the facepalm -- I have stuff to do.

Oh crap! Now how are we to know which direction we should be cycling?

Best not to bother with cycle lanes I think.

Davyhal

Lumen wrote: »

Meme reference, for the uninitiated.

Cyclists, Go use the footpad

Bahahaha!!! Never saw this before! I live with Ads_By_Google who started that thread! It's Mocking time!

And I believe that the point was trying to make earlier is that the guards should not have to crack down on just cyclists, they should crack down on all road users, but more importantly, they shouldn't have to. I am just saying that the rules are there and we should all abide by them, no matter the mode of transport. I know that is optimistic speaking, but there are posters here saying about jumping red lights and ignoring rules when no other traffic about, I'm just saying don't. No excuses, just obey the rules, and I'd say the same to motorists and pedestrians as well

TinyExplosions

dearg lady wrote: »

:rolleyes:
ok, fine, I'll be clearer. I don't follow laws, rules, general concensus without thinking it through for myself. I make informed choices.

coolbeans wrote: »

But why can't a motorist drive on through the ped crossing, or a seemingly pointless red light using the same rationale that you just have? I don't agree with you at all. If I want to be respected on the road I'll obey the rules, as long as they do not endanger me.

^He said it in a far less snarky way than I would, but it's the same point. Law are there for a reason, just because you don't like/agree with them, it's no reason to break them.

There's civil disobedience, and then there's just being silly. You appear to fall into the second category from your postings.

dearg lady

coolbeans wrote: »

But why can't a motorist drive on through the ped crossing, or a seemingly pointless red light using the same rationale that you just have? I don't agree with you at all. If I want to be respected on the road I'll obey the rules, as long as they do not endanger me.

well tbh on clear roads I do think it's kind of ridiculous, I'd prefer a system like in mainland europe, where cars are allowed to turn right on red.

I suppose the reason i wouldn't do it in my car, even tho I think it's ridiculous, is self interest, I don't want to have to pay a fine or extra insurance.
While I say I won't follow a law which makes no sense and has no benefit, I'm not gonna break a law, with only a small benefit to me, where there's a good chance of gettin caught. Again, informed choices!

mcmoustache

ThisRegard wrote: »

Howdy stranger, you must be new around these parts with your fancy dialect. It IS a footpad, end of.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my sharpening of a large knife as I stare menacingly at your post, contemplating my next move....

ThisRegard

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Indeed'n they do. They used to use it in white pudding back in ye olden times. Sheeps brain is delicacy in some middle eastern countries.

I did a google on this because I thought it was Indiana Jones that ate them, turns out they were monkey brains, wouldn't think there's too much of a difference.

However on the first page of the results this bizare quote appears, apparently from a South African site

Ja, I used to fight my brothers for the sheep's brains, but now when I go to the farm, ... a head on my plate is a bit too "Indiana Jones" for me. ...

and

A well cleaned sheep head baked in the Esse Coal Oven is absolutely delicious. The cheek meat, the tounge and even the brains, I cannot eat the eyes.

Not eating the eyes, what kind of weirdos are out there.

Apparently it's called a Smiley,

a sheep's head - teeth (hence smiley), eyes, brain, tongue and all!! Pickled in salt water for 24 hours, then seasoned with salt and pepper and roasted in a roasting bag for 3 hours at 180

Christ on a bike (there's my obligatory on topic reference).

mcmoustache

Davyhal wrote: »

Bahahaha!!! Never saw this before! I live with Ads_By_Google who started that thread! It's Mocking time!

Are you sure it's not Aids_By_Google that you live with? They are easily mixed up.

dearg lady

TinyExplosions wrote: »

^He said it in a far less snarky way than I would, but it's the same point. Law are there for a reason, just because you don't like/agree with them, it's no reason to break them.

There's civil disobedience, and then there's just being silly. You appear to fall into the second category from your postings.

and you're basing this on what exactly?
I will not ever follow rules blindly.
I do not break rules because I don't like them, I break them when they are of no benefit to anyone.

Davyhal

mcmoustache wrote: »

Are you sure it's not Aids_By_Google that you live with? They are easily mixed up.

Live with him too, but he's a dick!

coolbeans

dearg lady wrote: »

well tbh on clear roads I do think it's kind of ridiculous, I'd prefer a system like in mainland europe, where cars are allowed to turn right on red.

I suppose the reason i wouldn't do it in my car, even tho I think it's ridiculous, is self interest, I don't want to have to pay a fine or extra insurance.
While I say I won't follow a law which makes no sense and has no benefit, I'm not gonna break a law, with only a small benefit to me, where there's a good chance of gettin caught. Again, informed choices!

I just think that if every bugger took your attitude the place would be fcuked. Most people think that they're intelligent, even the stupid ones. Imagine all of them, en masse, applying the rationale that you've just outlined.

seamus

dearg lady wrote: »

:rolleyes:
ok, fine, I'll be clearer. I don't follow laws, rules, general concensus without thinking it through for myself. I make informed choices.

The reason we have laws is because what you consider to be a rational and informed choice, I might consider to be complete insanity, and vice-versa.

As el tonto points out, I'm sure the guy who drives home after four pints thinks he's making an "informed choice" with the same amount of conviction that you do.

Just because you think something is OK, doesn't make it so. The point of the law is that is sets an agreed standard upon which we can all adhere to without making our lives inconvenient. You don't get to choose which laws you do and do not obey. OK, you do. But if you knowingly choose to disobey a law, you should be happy to take any consequences of doing so.

I do think RLJing has gone down in Dublin city, proportionally so, with the rise in cyclists. There's something of a lemming effect when it comes to red lights - if one guy goes, everyone looks at him and thinks, "Why am I sitting here like an idiot?" and you see five or six people follow him, despite having been stopped at the red light.
Likewise if there are a lot of bikes and the 2 or 3 people at the top stop for the light (blocking other from going around them), then nobody goes.

The same effect can be seen in cars. If you have two people at the top of the queue and one decides to go because there's nothing coming, more often than not the other guy will go as well (and the people behind them).

Peer pressure is possibly a second element in it. Nobody wants to be Buzz Killington, so if you're the guy who stops at an amber rather than speeding up, you're the fag lamer. If you just realise that you don't give a fnck what anyone else thinks of you, these issues evaporate. I'll happily sit at a set of lights while the other cyclists all go ahead, then smugly freewheel by them 100m down the road. Likewise, I am the fag lamer who stops my car when the light goes amber, because I really don't give a **** if I get there 120 seconds sooner.

dearg lady

coolbeans wrote: »

I just think that if every bugger took your attitude the place would be fcuked. Most people think that they're intelligent, even the stupid ones. Imagine all of them, en masse, applying the rationale that you've just outlined.

that;s what the powers that be want you to believe! :P but, bein serious, I think it would be a lot less chaotic than you suggest. On a personal level, I simpely couldn't go through life blindly following rules just co they're there.

coolbeans

seamus wrote: »

The reason we have laws is because what you consider to be a rational and informed choice, I might consider to be complete insanity, and vice-versa.

As el tonto points out, I'm sure the guy who drives home after four pints thinks he's making an "informed choice" with the same amount of conviction that you do.

Just because you think something is OK, doesn't make it so. The point of the law is that is sets an agreed standard upon which we can all adhere to without making our lives inconvenient. You don't get to choose which laws you do and do not obey. OK, you do. But if you knowingly choose to disobey a law, you should be happy to take any consequences of doing so.

I do think RLJing has gone down in Dublin city, proportionally so, with the rise in cyclists. There's something of a lemming effect when it comes to red lights - if one guy goes, everyone looks at him and thinks, "Why am I sitting here like an idiot?" and you see five or six people follow him, despite having been stopped at the red light.
Likewise if there are a lot of bikes and the 2 or 3 people at the top stop for the light (blocking other from going around them), then nobody goes.

The same effect can be seen in cars. If you have two people at the top of the queue and one decides to go because there's nothing coming, more often than not the other guy will go as well (and the people behind them).

Peer pressure is possibly a second element in it. Nobody wants to be Buzz Killington, so if you're the guy who stops at an amber rather than speeding up, you're the fag lamer. If you just realise that you don't give a fnck what anyone else thinks of you, these issues evaporate. I'll happily sit at a set of lights while the other cyclists all go ahead, then smugly freewheel by them 100m down the road. Likewise, I am the fag lamer who stops my car when the light goes amber, because I really don't give a **** if I get there 120 seconds sooner.

Ya, what he said.

godihatedehills

Apologies for veering back on topic but I'm sick to the back teeth of all the RLJing. On my commute it's rare to find one single other cyclist who will stop for the lights.

I cycled in New Zealand last year and found that motorists had real disdain for cyclists on the roads and treated them as such. If we keep on like this it won't be long till it's like that here and if that happens there'll be no going back. I think people should have a bit more respect for the rules of the road if they want to be able to keep cycling in peace.

As it is cyclists are getting a terrible reputation and a lot of it is justified. I'd like to see a crackdown on red light jumping but I think it's sad that's the only way people would behave better.

Undercover Elephant

Davyhal wrote: »

Is it not a bit of a childish arguments to say "Well motorists break more laws than we do!".

No. The gardai have limited resources to deal with lawbreaking. It's perfectly sensible to argue about where those resources are best deployed.

TinyExplosions

dearg lady wrote: »

and you're basing this on what exactly?
I will not ever follow rules blindly.
I do not break rules because I don't like them, I break them when they are of no benefit to anyone.

Basing it on your posts, where you come out with things like:

dearg lady wrote: »

that;s what the powers that be want you to believe! :P but, bein serious, I think it would be a lot less chaotic than you suggest. On a personal level, I simpely couldn't go through life blindly following rules just co they're there.

Maybe it's just how you are phrasing things, but it's a terrible attitude to have that you are putting across, and there's other posters who have illustrated it already, so no need really for me to repeat it, other than to say that laws are there for a reason, and you should follow them (if you disagree strongly about one, then do something constructive about it like write to your TD, or challenge it in court, or start some campaign, don't just ignore it because it doesn't suit)

Piercemeear

My position would be that there's a case to be made for obeying the law even when you can break that law without really endangering anyone. It's about predictability. The system works, not because people are afraid of retribution or injuring someone, but because when everyone obeys it makes it possible to predict how everyone will behave. We all get places quicker. This is basically just civilisation 101.

So the ubiquitous two cars who skip through the red after amber make life difficult for everyone because peds, drivers from other directions, and cyclists can no longer predict what will happen. Cyclists continuing through a red light to merge with right-turning traffic may not be actually risking collision with that traffic, but they are forcing every driver to do a small double-take when a vehicle comes into her space from an area no vehicle should be coming from.

Road laws give a framework for predictability. Bad cyclists (and obviously bad car drivers) chip away at that predictability, generally exhausting everyone, and breeding resentment.

Three end-points:
1. The law-breaking become so frequent that people's expectations adjust. i.e. a system of sorts exist but it is not beholden to the road laws and as such will be a more fluid, changeable thing.
2. The law is changed, and people's expectations go through a short-term adjustment until balance is one again achieved.
3. Gardai crack down on law-breaking to pull us back towards law abidance.

I'm all in favour of people petitioning to change the law. I'm not in favour of people just ignoring the rules of the road because they think they're smarter than the system. It's not about that.

mcmoustache

Is it Friday. It sure feels like Friday but my screen says otherwise.

dearg lady

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Basing it on your posts, where you come out with things like:



Maybe it's just how you are phrasing things, but it's a terrible attitude to have that you are putting across, and there's other posters who have illustrated it already, so no need really for me to repeat it, other than to say that laws are there for a reason, and you should follow them (if you disagree strongly about one, then do something constructive about it like write to your TD, or challenge it in court, or start some campaign, don't just ignore it because it doesn't suit)

maybe I amn't very good at gettin my point across, I think you might be right there, but it's something I stand by and have discussed at length with people who do agree with me. I know there's none on this thread but that's life!
I do protest re laws I disagree with and will continue to do so. For the time being I'll continue to live as before. Just to be clear, my not complying with laws hasn't ever endangered or infringed on anyone else. It's a personal choice.

Davyhal

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

No. The gardai have limited resources to deal with lawbreaking. It's perfectly sensible to argue about where those resources are best deployed.

And there are plenty of crimes in the country more serious than traffic/road related crimes that they could be dealing with as well, I just think that everyone should obey the rules of the road, no excuses of "ah, its not that bad in this situation" sort of attitude. The law is there, follow it!

-K2-

dearg lady wrote: »

maybe I amn't very good at gettin my point across, I think you might be right there, but it's something I stand by and have discussed at length with people who do agree with me. I know there's none on this thread but that's life!
I do protest re laws I disagree with and will continue to do so. For the time being I'll continue to live as before. Just to be clear, my not complying with laws hasn't ever endangered or infringed on anyone else. It's a personal choice.

Have you heard of confirmation bias? Perhaps if you considered the opinions of others who don't agree with you then you might arrive at a more informed conclusion.

Nanazolie

You think the coast is clear so you just cycle (or drive) through the red light. Until someone comes unexpected. It happened to me at a car park entrance that cut the cycle lane. In fairness to the driver, the bushes were quite high, she couldn't have seen me coming from behind them. But there was a stop sign, and she ignored it, thinking there was no one on the cycle lane. My bike was destroyed, and I still bear a large scar on my left arm, not to mention a bump on my hip that will never go.
I can't see the benefits of jumping red lights. Each is a mere minute, sometimes less. Will waiting an extra minute make your life shorter, or less fulfilled?

There is also something seriously wrong with the assumption that rules are for dumbheads who can't drive / cycle properly because they can't make their own judgement, and that you only obey them because you are afraid of being hit in the pocket. Hurting a child who impredictably run across the road or causing a collision in the incoming traffic doesn't seem to be a deterrent for these people.

dearg lady

-K2- wrote: »

Have you heard of confirmation bias? Perhaps if you considered the opinions of others who don't agree with you then you might arrive at a more informed conclusion.

lol, sorry that was very poorly written on my part! of course I have spoken with people who disagree with me, and having heard all they have to say, i still feel the same way.
I would suggest that there is confirmation bias in play with many posters

godihatedehills

why have red lights at all? what a waste of money.

everyone should just decide when they think it's safe to go.

dearg lady

Nanazolie wrote: »

There is also something seriously wrong with the assumption that rules are for dumbheads who can't drive / cycle properly because they can't make their own judgement, and that you only obey them because you are afraid of being hit in the pocket. Hurting a child who impredictably run across the road or causing a collision in the incoming traffic doesn't seem to be a deterrent for these people.

I don't think anyone has said that..

Undercover Elephant

Davyhal wrote: »

And there are plenty of crimes in the country more serious than traffic/road related crimes that they could be dealing with as well, I just think that everyone should obey the rules of the road, no excuses of "ah, its not that bad in this situation" sort of attitude. The law is there, follow it!

No one (well almost no one) is saying you shouldn't follow the law. The topic of the thread is "should traffic laws be further enforced for cyclists?". If you want to argue that it should, then you should tell us where you will divert resources away from in order to do it.

But that said ... there are some situations where the application of the letter of the law would be downright stupid, and we are all safer by not following it as long as we do it in a predictable way.

Until a few years ago it was illegal to use your hazard warning flashers while moving, as is commonly done on motorways to warn of slow traffic ahead. Somehow I can't see the uniform disregard of that rule as a breakdown in civilised society. Quite the opposite, in fact.

dearg lady

godihatedehills wrote: »

why have red lights at all? what a waste of money.

everyone should just decide when they think it's safe to go.

I read an article on this in Time years ago. road signs, lights etc were removed from a town in (I think) Holland. It was very successful at the time, but I would like to see soem updates on it, and also don't know how well it would translate to larger cities.

Undercover Elephant

godihatedehills wrote: »

why have red lights at all? what a waste of money.

everyone should just decide when they think it's safe to go.

I assume you are joking, but there's actually a serious case to be put forward for this, in urban areas off the main arteries.

There was an experiment in Bristol where they turned the traffic lights off to see what would happen. And were amazed to see that no one got hurt and journey times were reduced. I'm not at my home computer so don't have the link to hand, sorry.


EDIT - might be this, but I am not allowed access in work hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9mzfN5i7ds

Captain Havoc

dearg lady wrote: »

I read an article on this in Time years ago. road signs, lights etc were removed from a town in (I think) Holland. It was very successful at the time, but I would like to see soem updates on it, and also don't know how well it would translate to larger cities.

I think it was Norway or Sweden but I think there's far too many traffic lights. I saw another youtube video of lights down in London and there were no pile ups. The Parade lights in Kilkenny were down often in while the work was being done to the Mayor walk and again, no accidents. Traffic lights cause really bad traffic and in a lot of cases a roundabout would be far more ideal.

dearg lady

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

No one (well almost no one) is saying you shouldn't follow the law.

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

But that said ... there are some situations where the application of the letter of the law would be downright stupid, and we are all safer by not following it as long as we do it in a predictable way.

contradicting yourself somewhat there no?
You make a very interesting point re predictableness